Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: questions (future stuff at NASA mostly)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 03:17:31 GMT
In article <35db1d2e.11476754@news.okanagan.net>,
Kelly McDonald <kellyNOSPAM@okanagan.net> wrote:
>>There has been an ongoing battle between the USAF, which wants them to
>>stay retired, and Congress, which wants a couple of them reactivated...
>
>Of course since the USAF more likely than not is currently operating
>the Aurora, the SR-71's successor...
It is now definitely known that "Aurora" was one of the codenames for the
B-2 project, not an SR-71 successor at all. Which is not to say that
there weren't any attempts at building such a thing...
>The SR-71 if I recall was classified into the 80's.
No, it was public knowledge in the mid-late 1960s, although a good many
details about it remained secret.
>I remember reading an interesting article in
>Jane's Defense Weekly about how strange the mothballing of the SR-71's
>was.
Not strange at all, actually -- the USAF was paying to operate them, but
was not a major customer for their data. So when money started to get
tight, quite naturally the USAF decided that it wasn't interested in
subsidizing the other customers any more. (There had been attempts at
shifting SR-71 funding to a joint-intelligence budget, but for various
trivial reasons, that never quite happened.)
By the way, despite official pronouncements, they weren't mothballed --
the ones that weren't given to NASA or to museums were basically drained
of fluids and left to rot. No attempt was made to preserve them in
flyable condition. This rather complicated attempts to reactivate them.
--
Being the last man on the Moon is a | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net
very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

From: gherbert@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Subject: Re: Del Tischler & RLV Propulsion (WAS: RLV maintenance
requirements)
Date: 9 May 1999 07:28:00 -0700
Tom <t2jr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I believe an SR-71 above Mach 3 operates in a pure ramjet mode and can
>run like this about 90 minutes. Also, an SR-71 pilot I knew at Dobbins
>AFB told me that the SR-71 maxes out at 4100 knots which is about double
>what the official record is.
Simple analysis of airframe heating and mach cone impingement on
the engines indicates a SR-71 isn't capable of much more than the
official 3.2 or so (somewhere around 3.6-3.8) without suffering
catastrophic flameouts and catastrophic overheats/structural
failures. Anyone with a good photo of the design or planform
drawing and basic supersonic aerodynamics knowledge can figure
out the former, and anyone who understands supersonic heat loads
and a titanium data sheet the latter.
-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com gherbert@crl.com

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle/747 landing tests
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:05:56 GMT
In article <39061E00.7009C174@trailing-edge.com>,
Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>Stupid questions: What's a D-21? What's a M-12?
Not stupid, just ignorant -- there's a big difference. Ignorance is
curable; that's why you ask questions!
The D-21 was a hypersonic recon drone, with some resemblance to a shrunken
Blackbird (and built by the same people). The M-12 was its original
launch aircraft, a Blackbird variant with a drone pylon on top of the aft
fuselage. (Like the later SR-71, it had a second crewman where the
original A-12 had a huge camera system.)
The one surviving M-12 is in the Museum Of Flight in Seattle. (They also
have a Blackbird cockpit you can climb into, which is pretty neat...)
--
"Be careful not to step | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net
in the Microsoft." -- John Denker | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

From: Mary Shafer <shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle/747 landing tests
Date: 26 Apr 2000 13:24:09 -0700
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:
> The D-21 was a hypersonic recon drone, with some resemblance to a shrunken
> Blackbird (and built by the same people). The M-12 was its original
> launch aircraft, a Blackbird variant with a drone pylon on top of the aft
> fuselage. (Like the later SR-71, it had a second crewman where the
> original A-12 had a huge camera system.)
Not like the later SR-71, it didn't. The SR-71 carried all its
cameras and recce gear in the nose, forward of the front cockpit and
the chine bays. In fact, they had different noses for different
missions and would swap the noses around depending on the mission.
They put things like power supplies in the chine bays, rather than
sensors.
We even got a bunch of empty noses, with different sorts of windows,
when the planes came to us. I know we used one with a window on top,
to do some atmospheric (ionospheric?) research for a university.
Crickmore implies that the A-12 camera wasn't in the nose, but it's
not really very clear where it was, except when it was in the D-21.
However, what I think is a line drawing of the YF-12 shows a small
camera bay behind the second seat, with a radar in the nose and more
boxes in front of the radar dish.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use shafer@spdcc.com please

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle/747 landing tests
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:20:24 GMT
In article <u0g0s8sj9y.fsf@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov>,
Mary Shafer <shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> ...a Blackbird variant with a drone pylon on top of the aft
>> fuselage. (Like the later SR-71, it had a second crewman where the
>> original A-12 had a huge camera system.)
>
>Not like the later SR-71, it didn't. The SR-71 carried all its
>cameras and recce gear in the nose...
I think you may have misread what I wrote, Mary. A-12: big camera behind
single cockpit. M-12: rear cockpit for drone operator replaces the big
camera. SR-71: ditto, so cameras (etc) have to go somewhere else, e.g.
nose or chines.
--
"Be careful not to step | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net
in the Microsoft." -- John Denker | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)